Forum:Official proposal - term limits for MA administrators
Proposal Following on from this discussion, I am now officially proposing a system to help ensure all administrators remain fair and impartial. I propose the following: *Nominations for adminship occur twice a year, for example in January and again in July. *Any admin nominated remains "in office" for a maximum of one year and will need to be reaffirmed after their time has expired. *There must be a minimum number of votes required for adminship to be bestowed/reaffirmed. *In the run up to admin nominations, there will be an MA-wide announcement with a dedicated page where current admins can present their reasoning for reaffirmation and their ideas for the wiki moving forward. During this period, existing users will also be invited to question admins on their ideas and how they will solve any issues that may arise. *Current admins and prospective nominees may invite other users to vote for them or simply garner interest in the nominations themselves. As it currently stands, all admins, once successful, remain admins for life. There is no incentive for an admin to maintain a high standard or abuse their "powers." By implementing a term limit, they will know that their standards of adminship will be scrutinised come voting day. This would also have the added impact of creating a community event twice yearly where everyone can get involved to decide who should be administering "our" wiki. I appreciate any polite comments you may have. --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:23, September 14, 2011 (UTC) Discussion :I disagree with this idea for the following reasons: :*A wiki is not a democracy, and should not be run like one. It shouldn't be a popularity contest. :*I would be hesitant to involve non-regular users in the process who are not familiar with it and not familiar with why such an event is taking place or the reasons behind it. There are better ways to generate community interest- that should not be the goal of the admin process. :*It is too open to abuse by those with personal grudges or issues with a particular admin. We already have users accusing admins of acting together as a secretive group- the same could happen with users, who would secretly get together and gang up on an admin, not because they don't deserve to be one, but because they don't like them. A way to counteract that - requiring a lot of votes- would not work as we don't have that many users(and we shouldn't attract them to such a situation as I described above) and it still is open to dissatisfied users ganging up on people. :*Who would moderate such a forum? :I would add that even Wikipedia does not have a user-based process to remove their admin's status that different from what we do now(discuss it).--31dot 23:40, September 14, 2011 (UTC) ::While I oppose Trekfan's idea, do we actually have a process for removing admin's status? --OuroborosCobra talk 23:48, September 14, 2011 (UTC) :No. I remember discussing one two years ago but nothing came of it. I would still be open to a removal process of some sort(not necessarily with the criteria on that old page I wrote) but I disagree with the idea of consistent renominations or term limits.--31dot 23:52, September 14, 2011 (UTC) Votes for/against *'Support' --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:57, September 14, 2011 (UTC) *I wish to oppose this idea.--31dot 23:55, September 14, 2011 (UTC)